Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Sitaram – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and prior proceedings. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioners argue against restoration order. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents argue notice issues in restoration. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's considerations on appeal's restoration. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. importance of notice to heirs in re-hearing. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. dismissal of writ petition; fresh hearing ordered. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Madhusudan Dikshit, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3/1 and 3/2 and Sri A.B. Srivastava, learned standing counsel for the state respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners filed a Suit No.26/1996 on 16.3.1996, under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. act for declaration in respect to plot no.601, area 0.241 decimal situated in village Pathanpura, Pergana and District Saharanpur. The aforementioned suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.6.1999. Against the judgment and decree dated 15.6.1999 passed by the trial court, petitioners filed an Appeal No.117 of 1998-99 before the Commissioner, under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which was dismissed for non-prosecuti
The court ruled that procedural delays should be examined contextually, emphasizing the need for justice over strict adherence to timelines, allowing case merits to guide decisions.
A suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code cannot be decided without framing issues and allowing evidence, and orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.
The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of long-pending suits under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, affirming that delays in restoration applications can be dismissed on grounds of limitati....
Restoration applications for ex-parte decrees are maintainable and do not abate under the U.P.C.H. Act, even if consolidation operations are ongoing.
The court emphasized the necessity of a fair hearing in legal proceedings, ruling that ex-parte orders and technical rejections of applications cannot deny substantive justice.
A stranger to the proceeding has no right to file a recall application against a judgment and decree passed on the basis of a compromise.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
